Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 3rd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call our meeting to order. We're here this morning, obviously, still studying Bill C-23. We have three witnesses today.

Mr. Howe, can you hear me?

[Prof. Paul Howe, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual]

Yes, I can, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Super, great.

Professor Howe, we're going to start our opening statements and we'll start with you on the video conference. Then we have two other witnesses at the table. If you'd like to start, please go ahead, for five minutes or less if you could, please.

[Prof. Paul Howe]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I teach political science and have general research interests in Canadian democracy, as well as a particular interest in voter participation among young Canadians. I’d like to address two aspects of Bill C-23 that have some connection to my research: the proposal to restrict the role of Elections Canada in promoting voter participation, and the increase in the annual political donation limit to $1,500.

My research focus on voter participation was triggered by the sharp drop in turnout at the 2000 federal election to just over 60%. Around that same time, Elections Canada also turned its attention to the issue in a significant way, conducting its own work and facilitating research by others. The result has been the development of a network of researchers doing focused work on this important issue.

Fourteen years on, we know a lot more and are in a better position to tackle the problem of declining turnout among young Canadians. There is some general consensus that the problem is rooted in deep-seated changes of a generational nature. An erosion in the sense of civic duty and a more individualized society are background cultural changes working against voter participation.

Relatively low levels of political knowledge and interest among younger generations are also key barriers. An important point is that many young people today are habitual non-voters. They do not just miss voting in the occasional election but instead vote in no elections. Much of this suggests that the problem runs deeper than simple administrative barriers, though these can be an additional obstacle for some.

Out of this research, various initiatives have been introduced to try to address the problem of low voter turnout. The criticism that’s been directed at these programs is that the bottom line has not budged since 2000. Turnout has not increased. It’s remained around the 60% mark with some minor variations since 2000.

I’m not persuaded by this criticism. First, it’s impossible to isolate the effect of any given initiative to increase turnout, because unless it has truly dramatic effects, its impact will likely be washed out by a multitude of other factors. These would include some that would tend to drive turnout down.

For example, attack ads by political parties have become more common in the past 10 years, now running for extended periods outside election campaigns. Some would suggest this is likely to have a negative effect on turnout. So as Elections Canada has been trying to increase turnout through its promotional efforts, parties have been engaging in activities that may discourage people from voting.

I’m not suggesting there are easy solutions to this issue. The pattern of turnout decline is deeply entrenched and will be difficult to reverse. But I believe Elections Canada has been taking many steps in the right direction. One of these is simply raising public awareness about the issue, something it could not do under the provisions of this bill.

It has tried to address administrative barriers where they exist, encouraged voter participation through advertising campaigns, and sponsored civic education initiatives such as the student vote program. It will require sustained and more intensive efforts along these same lines to generate robust democratic engagement among younger citizens.

One further idea, for example, would be to allow or perhaps even require young people to pre-register to vote at age 16, as happens in some other countries. An annual registration drive could then be coordinated through high schools, which would be a very effective way of registering new voters as well as providing a further civic learning opportunity.

Seeking to abolish Elections Canada's educational mandate is clearly counterproductive and unacceptable.

The other issue I would like to address is one that has not received as much attention in debate around Bill C-23. That is the increase in the amount an individual can donate to a political party on an annual basis, from $1,200 to $1,500. I recently carried out a study relevant to this issue with some of my students at the University of New Brunswick.

The study was prompted by concerns about changes to the rules around the financing of political parties, in particular the phasing out of per-vote subsidies. I think there is a perception on the part of some that this was a reasonable move because the rules around party donations create a fairly level playing field. All parties must depend on relatively small donations from many thousands of individuals rather than being bankrolled by a few large donors.

But a couple of findings from our study suggest there are significant inequalities in patterns of political donations that should be of concern. First, donors of amounts over $200 account for only one-quarter of all donors, but their contributions represent nearly two-thirds of all donation dollars. So larger donations, not surprisingly, count for a lot more.

Second, among these donors of amounts over $200, there is a strong skew towards wealthier individuals. There are nearly four times as many people donating that amount in the top 20% of household incomes as there are among people in the bottom 20%. In short, political donating is not as widely spread as we might think and is instead significantly dominated by smaller numbers of relatively wealthy Canadians.

Our conclusion in the study is that raising the donation limit to $1,500 is a move in the wrong direction. The limit should instead be decreased and probably quite substantially.

In raising this issue that has received little attention, my more general conclusion is that there are so many provisions in this omnibus elections bill that there is not adequate time to give proper attention to all of them and their potential ramifications. So finally, I would echo the sentiments of those who have said the bill needs to be substantially rethought and rewritten.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much, Professor Howe.

We'll go to Barry Thorsteinson from the National Pensioners Federation. Please make an opening statement of five minutes or less, if you could, please.

[Barry Thorsteinson, Past President, National Pensioners Federation]

Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of introductory words on the National Pensioners Federation.

We are into our 70th year now. We are the only seniors' democratic organization that holds an open and democratic convention annually with delegates from across the country. I would appreciate that folks take note of our various networks and provincial clubs, and even local clubs, that we have, and our 250 affiliates and over a million members.

Not least, I would like to also mention that seniors vote and we're watching the progress of this bill carefully for reasons I'll get into.

Basically I am here to specifically mention seven different issues in the bill. I know you're very familiar with the comments already out there from 160 academics and 19 international experts, which have been well publicized in the media previously. But I want to touch on seven issues. I'll do each briefly here in the five minutes.

First of all, the issue of vouching in polling stations, I would put at number one. Realistically, although I'm here speaking on behalf of seniors, this has already been identified as a major issue with youth, students, and first nations, but I'll leave it to my friend opposite to comment on behalf of first nations.

The disenfranchisement of voters is a serious issue in Canadian electoral history. We didn't fight wars to erode democratic institutions and values. We fought them to preserve them and enhance them. On a personal note, my father marched through northern Europe in 1944 and 1945 until injured in an artillery bombardment in the Netherlands. Anyway, that is not what they were fighting for, to see institutions eroded, but enough of that editorial comment.

On to my second point of voter identification cards. Please keep them. Seniors are used to using them, used to seeing them in the mailbox, and used to using them at the polling stations. It is rare, if at all, that you would find a senior going in with a fraudulent voting card. Again, there lacks evidence that this is a problem.

As for witnesses to be compelled to give testimony, we would argue for an amendment to the legislation, the re-inclusion to compel witnesses to testify as is the case in some provincial jurisdictions. We can look to the sad example of Guelph in the last election, which is still being investigated to some degree and is before the courts with respect to at least one individual.

Again, there we have I believe a campaign manager, who has refused to testify, legally allowed to do so under existing legislation and this is maintained under this bill. I seriously ask on behalf of seniors everywhere: what is the motive for providing cover for those who potentially may be aware of, or have evidence of, wrongdoing in our electoral process? What is the motive? That is a question I leave with you.

I am up to number four. Clause 44, poll supervisors to be, in essence, an appointment under partisan mechanisms. We would strongly recommend that, again, the proper values in our electoral system be the appointment by returning officers by way of merit not partisan connections. I think this cuts across all party lines. You can certainly find overzealous folks, I know I have in the past, in polling stations.

I was going to get into it later. I've been a campaign manager at the federal constituency level on previous occasions, but maybe more on that later.

I would also add that there is some latitude in the legislation to excuse documentation of all electoral campaign expenses. We fail to understand that for a government elected on accountability. Perceptions of superiority would be involved in not calling for full accounting methods of documentation for electoral expenses. We would seriously question the motives for not covering that end of it.

A couple more points on Elections Canada. On the commissioner, we would ask that he remain an independent servant under Canada's election laws, not be moved over to the Director of Public Prosecutions' office and reporting to a cabinet minister.

Lastly, the seventh point is that Elections Canada should be freely at latitude to promote electoral participation, voter turnout, democracy, and whatever, within its proper full mandate to have full and meaningful elections in Canada, that it not be restricted in any way from promoting democracy or advertising mechanisms of voter turnout. This is simply un-Canadian.

If I've used up my five minutes, I'll stop there. If not, I'll continue. I've covered the seven issues. I have more to say but maybe in the questions they'll come up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We are past the five. We can get it during questions, Mr. Thorsteinson.

Mr. Dinsdale, welcome and thank you for coming today. You have five minutes or less for an opening statement, please.

[Peter Dinsdale, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you for inviting us to appear here today on unceded Algonquin territory. My name is Peter Dinsdale. I am a member of Curve Lake First Nation and acting chief executive officer of the Assembly of First Nations.

I am joined by Karen Campbell, our director of policy; Tonio Sadik, an associate director; and Aaron Asselstine, one of our policy analysts. They are much smarter than I am and can answer all the tough questions if I need them to.

You may be aware that the Assembly of First Nations is the national political advocacy organization representing more than 630 first nation governments in Canada. We've identified a number of very specific concerns with respect to Bill C-23 and the changes it would make to the Canada Elections Act.

Frankly, the relationship between first nations and Canada is complex. This is also the case of engagement of first nations citizens in elections for all levels of government. We need to keep in mind that previous to March 31, 1960, registered Indians were not able to vote in Canadian elections. If they did, they would no longer be considered Indians under the law and couldn't even live in their home communities.

While we don't have precise information on first nation voting rates, estimates range between 35% and 75% across Canada's different regions. There are a number of reasons why first nations citizens may not participate in federal elections but none of them should arise as a result of barriers that are created at the federal level.

The first nation population is very young. Almost half the population is under the age of 25 and they have very high rates of mobility and high representation among transient groups. There's no question that this subset of first nations citizen votes at a very low rate.

An AFN resolution from 2004 on electoral reform and increased first nation voter turnout directed the AFN to embark on a voter awareness campaign for first nations, given the direct impact that the Canadian Parliament has on first nations rights and interests. Additionally, the resolution directed AFN to explore options for electoral reform.

In 2005, the Assembly of First Nations and Elections Canada hosted a two-day first nation voter turnout forum that recommended the development of a communications strategy and collaborative public education outreach focused on sharing information with first nation voters. The AFN undertook a number of joint initiatives with Elections Canada to do so, developing information materials on how to vote, hosting a first nation voter kiosk at first nation gatherings, and broadcasting public service announcements, featuring former national chief Phil Fontaine on APTN. AFN also worked in partnership with Elections Canada to provide information to first nations on how to vote.

In 2007, in advance of the 2008 election, a number of changes were made to the Canada Elections Act with respect to ID requirements. These changes required voters to present two pieces of ID, one with a photo and another to include a home address of the voter to prove their residency. Many first nation communities don't use home addresses in this manner and many are serviced by postal boxes. Additionally, many first nation citizens living in urban areas, including students, may not have ID that corresponds with a current address at the time of voting.

The AFN contacted first nation communities directly in both 2008 and 2011 to help ensure that bands were aware of the ID requirements and options available to resident voters, including the option of having band officials issue an attestation of residence, the use of voter information cards to establish current residency, or the option of vouching, where someone who is already a registered voter from the same polling division is able to confirm a person's residence and identity.

Our efforts since 2011 have included phoning band offices directly, using a series of scripts developed jointly with Elections Canada, in 20 electoral districts, which were selected based on their geography, primarily north of the 55th parallel, and where the proportion of eligible voters, meaning those with high numbers of first nations people and election participation history, were deemed to have low participation.

What we found in this work is that there is a clear role for an independent organization to work directly with first nations to provide information about voting. While Elections Canada has some materials that could be made available to electors generally, they were assessed as less than optimal for first nations for a variety of reasons, including their legalistic tone and their generic approach.

During the election, returning officers are responsible for administering electoral processes in their ridings through direct contact with the first nations. AFN found that the amount and quality of information transmitted to first nation communities by these returning officers varied significantly.

Much more can be done to enhance first nation participation in federal elections and our relationship with Elections Canada has sought to build this over the past several elections. I'm not sure how many witnesses you have coming before you that can speak to this direct level of participation in order to raise awareness and encourage participation in this manner.

In this context, we have two specific concerns with the proposed changes under Bill C-23. The first is the restrictive ID requirements and disallowance of vouching. These provisions that disallow voter information cards as proof of residency will create a new barrier to first nations citizens wishing to vote, particularly those residing in first nation communities who don't use a home address or who have recently moved or are living in overcrowded housing situations, which we know exist.

Further, with the removal of vouching as an option, it is possible that some of these first nations citizens will have few or no options available to them to vote in the next election.

The second concern is the limits on communication between the Chief Electoral Officer and voters.

As I mentioned, we worked productively with Elections Canada in a non-partisan capacity over the past three federal elections to help ensure that first nation voters had information on how to participate in elections. Bill C-23 proposes significant changes to current section 18 of the Elections Act, eliminating the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with electors or provide information through unsolicited calls.

These changes, it would seem, would eliminate our efforts to reach out to band offices to provide information for an upcoming election. The role of Elections Canada has included providing impartial support for fair and accessible elections that enable all eligible voters to exercise their right to vote if they so choose. The changes noted above will limit or prevent this role from being fulfilled.

Therefore, the AFN recommends removing from Bill C-23 any amendments to section 18 so as to retain the current mandate for the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education and information programs and make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights.

Secondly, the AFN recommends that provisions that remove the ability to use voter information cards as a proof of residency and that disallow vouching be struck from this bill.

First nations are determining how they want to interact with their own governments and more broadly with the Canadian state. These changes limit their options and ability to be engaged in a Canadian electoral democracy and to have equal say in its outcomes. We believe this is a step backwards.

Meegwetch. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Dinsdale.

We'll go to questioning now, with a round of seven minutes.

Mr. Reid, you're starting today.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I'll start with Mr. Dinsdale.

Two things came up in your comments that I want to deal with. The first relates to youth participation. Are you aware of the Chief Electoral Officer's study on youth participation in the last election?

[Peter Dinsdale]

No, I don't have it in front of me, obviously, if we're going to quote it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay.

He published what he calls the 2011 general election “National Youth Survey Report”. It was a survey of 1,300 randomly selected youth and young adults and also 1,293 youth selected non-randomly in order to get adequate sample numbers from a number of groups, including aboriginal youth.

I turn now to comments that were made there about lack of participation by aboriginal youth.

First of all, he states of the five youth subgroups:

Youth in the five subgroups reported voting at rates that were significantly lower than that of the general youth population, with the lowest turnout reported by Aboriginal youth and unemployed youth.

Then he summarizes the top number of reasons explaining why each group had a low participation rate.

For Aboriginal youth, the most important barriers to voting were lower educational attainment, low awareness of the different ways to vote, lack of interest in the election, and difficulty getting to the polling station.

He doesn't say this here, but I have the suspicion that aboriginal youth could probably be divided into two subgroups, those who live on reserve and those who live in urban centres, where they probably are just unfamiliar with things such as the polling location.

What I'm getting at when I mention all this is that the new section 18 in the proposed changes to the Elections Act would mandate the Chief Electoral Officer to have to provide some of this basic civics information, an area in which, in my view and the view of some of the witnesses we've had before us, has been woefully inadequate. They have done a very poor job of telling you such basic things as: where you should vote; what should happen if you're not on the voters list; what you do if you don't get a voter information card or if it has the wrong information on it; at what times you can vote, I think; what means you have, aside from the election day poll, for voting; and so on. These are all listed and mandated.

I have to tell you that, based on previous testimony I've heard by the Chief Electoral Officer over a number of years, the only example I've heard of outreach of this nature, giving this kind of basic information—not why you should vote, but how you should be able to take advantage of your right to vote—is of a program that was done with your own organization. There was one other aboriginal organization they worked with—I can't remember the name of the organization—

[Peter Dinsdale]

It was the National Association of Friendship Centres.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That sounds right. Yes, obviously the attempt was to use it as a way of getting into the urban areas.

The impression I had, although I didn't get full details, was that those were good programs. I have to say that my view is that those programs would continue to be entirely acceptable under this legislation and indeed would serve, I think, as a useful model for such other groups as the disabled, who are also showing low rates of participation.

I just want to draw that to your attention, but what I'm really saying here is that your fear is reasonable but I think is actually dealt with in the legislation as written now.

[Peter Dinsdale]

There are a couple of things. First, I'm not familiar with the study you quote from, but it certainly sounds reasonable. You can slice aboriginal participation many different ways—on and off-reserve, for first nations people. Of course, Métis and Inuit will have their own unique challenges.

We've read other research, of course, saying that the reason first nations people don't vote is complicated. There is a sense of nationalism, sometimes—it's not our election, it's your election—that kind of sense of separation. We think there is a kind of concern about dealing with the federal state because of collective trauma, such things as the residential schools and previous history that we talked about. There hasn't been a tradition in our communities of voting in federal elections, and there is a kind of poverty notion, which you may be referring to, in some respects as well. These are obviously important issues.

I was the executive director of the National Association of Friendship Centres when that collaboration took place. It was very helpful. It was about telling people how to vote, what is required, getting their voter IDs in place prior to the election. It's very similar to what the Assembly of First Nations has done.

If you're telling me that this is in the current provisions, that hasn't been our reading of them. If it's the case, anything to strengthen and clarify that fact would be important. If that's the intention, it's certainly progress.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

Because I'm running short of time I'm going to turn my next comment to Mr. Thorsteinson.

Regarding the issue of voter information cards, I don't know whether you're aware of this, but under the regulations associated with the current legislation, voter information cards cannot be used as identification. The Chief Electoral Officer was proposing expanding their use, and at the last election there were some experiments done, but outside of those experimental areas, it was not permissible to use the voter information card as a form of voter identification.

It's an important distinction. I hear many people say, “Don't stop this from being done”. Well, we hadn't started doing it.

I just want to tell you of the concern I have with expanding the use of the voter information card and the reason that I'm happy to see that it is being prevented in this legislation. There are many errors in the voter information cards.

I'm turning here to a document, the report of the Chief Electoral Officer following the last general election. He tells us that the preliminary list for the 41st general election had 84% of electors listed at the correct address, which means that 16% were not. So we're talking about millions of people. The voter information cards are issued based on the preliminary list, not the final list, so we have 16% of people getting the wrong card or the wrong address.

To give one example, my ex-wife and I received cards advising us to vote in two different ridings because of some internal database error. Had she had that card as a piece of identification, she could have voted in the wrong riding.

I don't see how Elections Canada can authorize someone to vote in the wrong riding—a riding she didn't live in—but that kind of thing occurs. Until that is resolved, until they have a perfect database, which seems unlikely, the use of the information card will inherently be problematic.

I wonder, based on that, whether you would concur with me that it is perhaps not the right way to resolve the issues that are particular to seniors relating to their ability to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Make it a short answer, Mr. Thorsteinson.

[Barry Thorsteinson]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I would address the honourable member with the comment that I appreciate that in the 2011 election the voter identification cards had limited usefulness compared with the previous one. Nevertheless, many seniors like me have short memories and still rely on them. It assists the efficiency at the polling station to identify on the poll list who the voter is.

Yes, people take shortcuts. Do polling clerks, deputy returning officers, polling station supervisors search for two pieces of ID when they're satisfied that the voter card and the first piece of ID are legitimate?

I am not saying that there is an excuse for skirting the legal status of voter identification cards. Nevertheless, seniors like them. They don't want changes that diminish them in any further way, and I would encourage that their use continue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid. Your time is done.

Mr. Scott, you're up. I understand I have a four and a three here.

Go ahead.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Yes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll let you know.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Everybody knows the Chief Electoral Officer has the authority to designate ID. Voter information cards were designated the last time. There's no—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Only in a few experimental areas.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

It was within his authority to do so. So stop misleading people to think that this is not authorized.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Oh, for goodness sake....